CEJ v BDL - [2009] QSC 210

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	CEJ v BDL [2009] QSC 210
PARTIES:	CEJ (applicant) v BDL (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 2911 of 2008
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	5 August 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2, 3 April 2009
JUDGE:	Martin J
ORDER:	The applicant is to bring in appropriate minutes of order.
CATCHWORDS:	DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Adjustment of property interests – Relevant Considerations – Financial Contributions – Where parties ended a de facto relationship – where parties purchased a property together – where title deed reflected a 1:3 property division in favour of respondent – where respondent’s father contributed half of the purchase monies – where parties obtained a mortgage for the other half of purchase monies – whether the contribution of the respondent’s father should be considered a contribution to the respondent only or to both parties – whether parties contributed equally to household expenses and mortgage repayments – whether an adjustment should be made for other factors.
Property Law Act 1974, s 286, s 297-s 309
FO v HOF [2007] 2 Qd R 138 In the Marriage of Gosper (1987) 11 Fam LR 601 In the Marriage of Kessey (1994) 18 Fam LR 149 Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513
COUNSEL:	G K Waterman for the applicant T F Carmody SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	John Nagel & Co for the plaintiff Gateway Lawyers for the respondent

The applicant (“CEJ”) and the respondent (“BDL”) lived together in a de facto relationship for about 3 years and 10 months. The applicant now seeks a property adjustment order under s 286 of the Property Law Act 1974 (“PLA”). The pool of property to be considered is relatively small. The major issue is the proper characterisation of a sum of money provided by BDL’s father that was used as part of the payment for the house purchased by CEJ and BDL.

Background

CEJ was born on 11 September 1980 and is 28 years old. BDL was born on 30 May 1983 and is now 26 years old.
It was agreed that the parties entered into a de facto relationship on 23 August 2003 and separated on 16 June 2007. There are no children of the relationship.
On 29 July 2003 CEJ and BDL executed a contract for the purchase of a house property at 10 Newman Road, Moorooka (“the Moorooka property”). The purchase price was $250,000. That sum was paid by:
(a) The parties obtaining a loan for $125,000 from the National Australia Bank, and
(b) BDL’s father providing $125,000.
The title to the property is in the name of the parties as tenants in common with CEJ having a one-quarter interest and BDL having a three-quarter interest.

The Property Law Act

The correct approach to consideration of the relevant provisions of the PLA was set out in the reasons of Keane JA in FO v HOF.

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading CEJ v BDL

Details

AGLC: CEJ v BDL [2009] QSC 210
Case: [2009] QSC 210
Decision Date: 5/08/2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of CEJ v BDL involves a dispute between former de facto partners over the division of their property interests following the termination of their relationship. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia, where the parties sought to resolve the distribution of their jointly owned property. The central issue before the court was whether the contributions made by the respondent’s father towards the purchase of the property should be considered solely as a contribution to the respondent or as a joint contribution. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the parties had contributed equally to the household expenses and mortgage repayments during their relationship. The applicant argued that an adjustment should be made to account for various other factors influencing their financial contributions.

The court examined the nature of the financial contributions made by both parties and the respondent’s father. It considered the evidence regarding the mortgage and other financial commitments. The court also evaluated the extent to which the contributions affected the overall property settlement. In its reasoning, the court highlighted the importance of ensuring a fair and equitable outcome that reflects the true financial circumstances of both parties. It took into account the principles of justice and fairness as established in relevant case law concerning de facto relationships and property settlements.

Ultimately, the court found that the contribution made by the respondent’s father should be considered as a joint contribution to the property. The court determined that the parties had not contributed equally to household expenses and mortgage repayments, and it made an adjustment to account for other factors impacting the property settlement. The final orders required the applicant to prepare appropriate minutes of order to reflect the court’s decision on the division of property interests between the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant is to bring in appropriate minutes of order.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.